--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> For a long time I've been of the belief that there are
> few people on earth who would benefit more from the
> practice of mindfulness than Judy Stein. Reading Vaj's
> post about the recent experiments in which mindfulness
> changed brain function reinforced that belief for me.
> 
> Take the example used in that well-written article. When
> a person sees an angry face -- even if it's flashed at
> them subliminally, too fast for them to recognize con-
> sciously -- the brain reacts by going into fight or
> flight response. For some reason I do not understand,
> Judy has a tendency to see angry faces where I do not
> perceive them to be. <snip>

Bingo! I think this is the crux of it right here. 

Back around 2002 when I yet had a good bit of unresolved anger toward 
MMY and the TMO, but was not particularly aware of that anger on the 
surface, and thought I was making logical, helpful, reasonable posts, 
Judy often ate me for lunch. :-) Since then, over time, I've paid a 
lot of attention to my old MMY/TMO wounds, and watched a lot of them 
heal. 

This doesn't mean I have assumed or resumed a true-believer stance 
w/r/t MMY and the TMO. My "program" has continued to dissolve and 
morph beyond all recognition and description, becoming entirely 
spontaneous and self-directed, moment to moment. While I enjoy some 
aspects of Stapathya-veda, I chose to buy a great Victorian house 
with a lovely south entrance, only 4 blocks from FF's square. I moved 
to FF (again) primarily because of the love and companionship I feel 
for the Wednesday-night Satsangers; I had no abiding interest in MUM, 
the TMO or the Domes. I don't use MAPI herbs or Ayurveda. I'm not a 
great fan of Jyotish, although I've seen in the hands of an intuitive 
practitioner it can work healing wonders, like any other richly 
complex language. (My wife and I were most impressed with Shastri-
ji.) I don't particularly believe or disbelieve in MMY's old SofC 
model, having in turn (1) swallowed it whole, (2) seen it as a fairy-
tale construct of a single indivisible SofC, (3) had fun dividing C 
up into other models of my own, and (4) been blown away last year by 
far deeper understanding of, and congruence between, my models and 
MMY's. I have no real opinion on the Rajas and the Raams, viewing 
them as an odd and occasionally-interesting drama that doesn't at the 
moment have much to do with me.

Having been there myself (and in a deeper sense, being there now, as 
what I see is all "me" :-)), I can understand your puzzlement at her 
seeing angry faces where you do not. From where I stand now, though, 
it often appears that you actually *aren't* thinking clearly or 
logically, but are instead making comments from a specific 
wounded/resentful feeling-level which make perfect sense to  -- and 
only to -- another person sharing that wounded/resentful feeling-
level: That in fact you are communicating primarily to confirm 
your "ain't MMY awful" feeling-level (this I notice far more 
consistently and far more "loudly" in Barry and Steve than in you, 
Curtis). This may not at all be *your* truth, and I'm OK with that. I 
know that in truth, you are none of the above -- you are only and 
completely indescribably beautiful, radiant Being. And again, lest 
anyone think I am criticising anyone here, please know that I am not. 
It is, indeed, all me, and all indescribably perfect. I'm just 
describing me as clearly as I can in this moment.  Most of all, I 
feel happy and blessed to know you all! :-)

*L*L*L*




Reply via email to